Tim Ashton wrote:
question to all of you producing great images with the 24-85 kit lens.
Does it perform better/a lot better than its test results might suggest it should?
Tim
I don't care. It is quite a nice lens and has a great zoom range for all day use without having to swap glass often. I needed a general purpose walk around lens that doens't weigh 3 pounds on my D600, having moved up from DX with that body. So when it was in the bundle deal, I went for it.
Nowhere near as sharp as the Rokinon 85mm at 85mm, not as sharp as the old Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIS at 50mm, and a little soft in the corners at 24mm when wide open. It's "good enough" for most uses, especially once you apply lens correction. Lightweight, compact, and I won't be mad at myself should I accidentally drop it off the mountain (I have done that with other lenses before...).
Take it with a grain of salt - I still shoot lenses I bought in the 1980s and think they perform fine. Yeah, there is better stuff out there, but the difference isn't worth it to me to even investigate what other zooms I could "trade up to." I've shot nice glass in the past, so I'm sure that with the 24-85VR the colors could be better, the "microcontrast" could be a lot better, and corner sharpness could be improved by quite a bit, but hey - look at what these things sell for on ebay and then look at the images they can produce first. When you then check prices on the alternatives, it gets pretty difficult to dismiss this lens, unless money is no object (but then why are you shooting D600?).
pburke wrote:
I don't care. It is quite a nice lens and has a great zoom range for all day use without having to swap glass often. I needed a general purpose walk around lens that doens't weigh 3 pounds on my D600, having moved up from DX with that body. So when it was in the bundle deal, I went for it.
Nowhere near as sharp as the Rokinon 85mm at 85mm, not as sharp as the old Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIS at 50mm, and a little soft in the corners at 24mm when wide open. It's "good enough" for most uses, especially once you apply lens correction. Lightweight, compact, and I won't be mad at myself should I accidentally drop it off the mountain (I have done that with other lenses before...).
Take it with a grain of salt - I still shoot lenses I bought in the 1980s and think they perform fine. Yeah, there is better stuff out there, but the difference isn't worth it to me to even investigate what other zooms I could "trade up to." I've shot nice glass in the past, so I'm sure that with the 24-85VR the colors could be better, the "microcontrast" could be a lot better, and corner sharpness could be improved by quite a bit, but hey - look at what these things sell for on ebay and then look at the images they can produce first. When you then check prices on the alternatives, it gets pretty difficult to dismiss this lens, unless money is no object (but then why are you shooting D600?).
Nice samples, Reagan. Not much of an impressive looker of a lens, but it delivers the goods as long as you know the limitations. I replaced my DX 55-200 with it and it does everything that lens did and more. I don't shoot it enough because I want to use the old 105mm and the 300mm ED, but it's always in the bag.
